A currently popular narrative on the Left has one fatal flaw. With judges freezing Trump administration policies left and right, politically powerless progressives console themselves with the notion that Trump’s actions are utterly lawless and will eventually be struck down in court. That notion was shipwrecked on the rocks of reality last week, when two judges were themselves charged with crimes for their impotent attempts to shelter criminal illegal immigrants from deportation.

Activist Judges Arrested

On Thursday, ICE agents arrested Joel Cano, a former magistrate judge in Doña Ana County, N.M., and his wife on two counts of evidence-tampering. ICE agents arrested Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, an illegal immigrant with Tren de Aragua tattoos, while executing a search warrant at Cano’s home, where Ortega-Lopez allegedly worked and lived as a handyman. Social media posts show Ortega-Lopez and other illegal immigrants firing numerous weapons at a shooting range.

Cano admitted to smashing Ortega-Lopez’s cellphone with a hammer after his arrest. Forensic analysis of the phones revealed incriminating messages, including gang affiliates and firearms images. Cano resigned last month, and the New Mexico Supreme Court has now permanently barred him from serving as a judge.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) charged Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan with obstructing a U.S. agency and concealing an individual to prevent an arrest. Wisconsin judicial elections are officially non-partisan, but Dugan won her first election by defeating an appointee of former Governor Scott Walker (R).

According to a sworn affidavit from an FBI special agent in the Milwaukee Field Office, Judge Dugan reacted angrily when she learned that federal agents were waiting outside her courtroom to arrest an illegal immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz. Executing arrest warrants after court appearances is standard practice because 1) the government knows exactly where the arrestee is, and 2) routine security screening ensures that the arrestee is unarmed, making an arrest safer for everyone, the affidavit explained.

U.S. Border Patrol obtained an “order for expedited removal” of Flores-Ruiz under the Obama administration in 2013, which means “you can be deported without a court hearing, because you have been determined inadmissible to the United States,” National Review’s Jim Geraghty explained. On this occasion, Flores-Ruiz was in court because he allegedly punched his roommate 30 times for complaining that his music was too loud.

According to the affidavit, Dugan angrily confronted the federal agents, insisted that they get a judicial warrant instead of an administrative warrant, and sent them off to the chief judge. The chief judge was not in the courthouse but eventually told the agents over the phone that the administrative warrant was sufficient to carry out an arrest in a public hallway. Meanwhile, Dugan adjourned the illegal immigrant’s case and spirited him and his attorney away through a back door. No thanks to the judge, federal agents noticed the secret escape plan and arrested Flores-Ruiz outside the courthouse after a foot chase.

In a statement, Dugan’s attorney protested her innocence, “Hannah C. Dugan has committed herself to the rule of law and the principles of due process for her entire career as a lawyer and a judge. Judge Dugan will defend herself vigorously and looks forward to being exonerated.”

This insistence is difficult to square with widely attested actions in the current situation, including her visible anger at the presence of law enforcement officers, her giving them the run-around, and her attempt to help an alleged offender escape from custody without even hearing the charges against him.

Activist Judges Empowered

These activist judges were elected local officials in their respective states’ judicial system. They therefore had no authority to enforce or prevent the enforcement of federal immigration laws. When, for ideological or partisan reasons, they chose to undermine those laws anyways, they could only do so by apparently breaking laws themselves.

The situation of federal judges is different because they do have authority to rule on immigration-related cases. For this reason, people can use sloppy reasoning to erroneously conflate the rulings issued by judges with what the law requires. On the basis of such reasoning, they conclude that the administration has acted illegally whenever a judge rules against it.

So, for example, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) insisted in a Sunday interview, “President Trump is violating [the] rule of law in every way.” If pressed to substantiate this assertion, he would likely cite various court rulings against Trump.

Yet a judge’s ruling is not identical to the law itself. Laws are written and enacted by the legislative branch of government, while the judicial branch of government is tasked with applying the law to individual cases. America’s free and open political system allows parties, partisans, and the press to compare the substance of that ruling to the words of the law it purportedly interprets. And, notwithstanding the authority of his or her office, a judge’s opinions will (or, at least, should) only stand up to scrutiny if they conform to the text of the laws on which they are ostensibly based.

Even the shape of America’s judicial system acknowledges the possibility — even the likelihood — that judges will err. If district judges’ rulings were infallible, then appellate courts would be unnecessary. Yet the federal judiciary has not one but two layers of appeal, and these appellate courts keep their schedule full by reviewing lower court rulings, correcting them, and navigating sometimes contradictory precedents.

The point is, our system of government is based on the rule of law, not rule by judges. Judges are supposed to adjudicate disputes. In a country based on the rule of law, that usually involves saying or clarifying what the law says. But it does not involve rewriting the laws or flagrantly defying them, either through rulings or personal action.

Rule of Law and the Trump Administration

The tricky part is to sort out what are proper and improper judicial actions amid real-world litigation against a major government policy, like the Trump administration’s efforts to deport thousands of illegal immigrants who have no legal right to remain in the United States.

On one hand, a federal district judge in California last week blocked the Trump administration from freezing funds to so-called “sanctuary” cities, which refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies on immigration matters. Here, “sanctuary” is merely a euphemism for nullification. These local jurisdictions have claimed for themselves the power to decide which federal laws they will choose to enforce. Instead of rebuking these cities for the constitutional crisis they provoked, he instead ruled that the federal government may not punish these cities in any way. In fact, he ruled that the federal government must unconditionally continue to fund the very cities that are defying its laws. This seems like an obviously improper conclusion for a judge to draw.

“We’re getting very radical judges put on the bench, whether it is through an election process or an appointment,” complained Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) on “Washington Watch.” “There’s absolutely a political component to it. These judges have made the decision that they are going to defy whatever agenda Donald Trump is attempting to pursue. They are blocking the will of the American public, and they are essentially acting as the gatekeeper, regardless of the legality of the decisions that he is making.”

Hageman pointed out that the problem was most acute when district judges issued nationwide injunctions. “The plaintiffs in these cases … are forum shopping. … They’re going to judges that they know — it doesn’t even matter what the issue is — they’re going to get an injunction because they are all in on,” she said. These solitary judges are “acting as a super-Supreme Court. At least with the Supreme Court … you have to convince five of the people as to the correctness of the argument.”

On the other hand, in an April 10 order, the Supreme Court unanimously faulted the Trump administration for violating a court order and deporting Kilmar Garcia, an illegal immigrant and alleged MS-13 gang member, to El Salvador (the question was not so much whether he should be deported but where he could be sent, and how much due process was necessary before doing so). Given that the Trump administration had admitted its error in court documents, this seems like a proper judicial conclusion.

As this latter scenario illustrates, it is possible for both judges and the executive branch to fall short of their duty to uphold the rule of law.

Alongside the Trump administration’s many positive actions, the administration has also betrayed a more concerning tendency to value personal loyalty or its own policy priorities to preserving American institutions and the rule of law. For instance, in the first week of his new administration, Trump dismissed the inspectors general for virtually every agency, without providing proper notification to Congress as required by law.

In this, Trump follows the pattern of President Andrew Jackson, one of his presidential heroes, whose picture he hung in the Oval Office. Jackson famously refused to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, choosing to ignore United States treaties with the Cherokee Nation and allow Georgia to unconstitutionally imprison a missionary rather than enforce an order that ran contrary to his populist agenda.

Unfortunately, where it fails to adhere conscientiously to the rule of law, the Trump administration only makes things harder for itself. There was a right way to deport Garcia, and there was a right way to dismiss the inspectors general. But, by choosing speed over accuracy, the Trump administration has gotten embroiled in needless fights with the courts. Even worse, by picking a handful of foolish fights, the Trump administration has also lent undue credibility to the activist judges squashing other administration policies that are on a solid legal footing.

Rule of Law and Biblical Leadership

Lawlessness can only run rampant when judges are compromised. This is why Moses instructed Israel’s judges to “judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s.” If these commands were kept, the only case that would rise to a higher court is “the case that is too hard for you” (Deuteronomy 1:16-17).

This code of judicial ethics, originally written nearly 3,500 years ago, remains astonishingly high. How would Israel find judges to fulfill this high calling to impartiality? Moses directed Israel to “choose for your tribes wise, understanding, and experienced men, and I will appoint them as your heads” (Deuteronomy 1:13). Yes, the judges were both chosen by the people and appointed by the leader. But they were, more importantly, recognized by all for their wisdom, understanding, and experience. This is what makes for good judges — or for good leaders of any office in a nation governed by law.

As we Christians pray “for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Timothy 2:2), let us pray that God would give our governing officials in all three branches the same wisdom, experience, and upstanding character that will make the rule of law flourish under their care.